View Single Post
  #3  
Old July 8th 08, 03:45 AM posted to misc.fitness.walking,misc.fitness.aerobic,misc.fitness.misc,uk.rec.walking,rec.running
Steve Freides
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,029
Default Treadmill advice needed

"DrollTroll" wrote in message
...

"Steve Freides" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Hi,

I am thinking about buying my first treadmill. My family and I are
on
a very, very tight budget and we are counting every penny so this is
a
huge decision for us and I need some help in deciding which one to
pick.

I am 6 foot 3 (189cm) for 252 pounds (115kgs) and I need to walk for
about 30min on a daily basis to loose weight. The climate where I
live makes outdoor walking impossible most of the year and, besides,
I
need to stay at home to watch for the kids. I do not plan to run on
the treadmill, only walk, initially slowly (I am very much out of
shape), but eventually at a brisk pace to get a good aerobic
exercise.

I have been initially tempted to buy the NordicTrack C2155 (
http://tinyurl.com/5amgjq )

But the newer NordicTrack A2350 looks even better to me (
http://tinyurl.com/5mfsxs
)

My questions to you a

1) Do NordicTrack treadmills have a good reputation?
2) What do you think of the two models I am considering?
3) Can you think of a better (as in value for the money) deal than
these NordicTrack treadmills?

Many thanks for any pointers!

Mamadu


Google the phrase strength-endurance, and don't settle for just a
treadmill. Google also "ross budget training" and read his web site.
There are a ton of things one can do, at home, for little or no
money, to build both strength and conditioning, and certainly for
well less than the cost of a treadmill of any sort.

My choice would be a kettlebell plus the book "Enter The Kettlebell"
by Pavel Tsatsouline - the combination will cost you about $200 and
is widely available. Or buy yourself a screw-on dumbbell set at the
local mega-mart plus a jump rope - that combination will cost you
$50. Or any of a thousand other things. Just say no to the dishonor
of dieting and aerobics and get stronger _and_ well-conditioned
instead - and lose weight while doing it.


As usual, Friedes is partially right in his obs/recs, but has so far
to go as yet in trying to get over himself, that the correct stuff is
often unrecognizable, buried beneath his sundry personal issues and
self-preoccupations.


Personal attacks serve no purpose, so stick to the issues at hand.

He is right that walking is perhaps a middling approach to complete
fitness, but it is an excellent beginning, certainly a very convenient
tool, and actually capable of burning a lot of calories. And possibly
a requisite beginning for many people.
I myself walk 2-4 hours/week, brisk and up-hill (both ways!), in
preference to running in summers. In winter, the emphasis is more on
running.


I walk quite a bit as well, e.g., I walked about 4 miles yesterday with
my wife in two outings, the first a mile each way to a local farmers
market and home with produce, the second an evening visit to a friend a
mile each way. It is a lovely thing to do, and sufficient for many
purposes, e.g., the elderly, but I assume our original poster is middle
aged or younger because he/she did not indicate otherwise.

Nothing wrong with aerobics, nothing wrong with dieting, when done
intelligently and in context.
As a culture, we just eat too goddammuch anyway, and the zeitgeist of
"revving up our metabolisms" so's we can eat even *more* is just
effing ludicrous, profligate, and reprobate. And immoral.

I am a big believer in weights and HIT, but everything in time.
The site Friedes refers to is rosstraining.com, and it is indeed an
excellent site--altho pretty intense stuff, but which you can always
tailor for yourself.

If you look at the cultures renowned for their longevity and health,
walking/hiking/carrying/herding is likely the full extent of their
"exercise"--they just do lots of it.

Also, if you are going to go the eventual weight-route, forget about
Friedes and his obsession with effing kettlebells.
KBs certainly aren't bad, but *nary a person on this planet* can
rationally explain why KBs are *at all* better than dumbbells, save
for one or two possible moves.

Whilst there are a litany of people who can cogently argue why
dumbbells are FAR better than KBs.
DBs serve the same basic function--resistance-- but are *far* more
versatile, more economical, more ergonomic, more use-able..... you
get the idea.
But Friedes doesn't. And never will.


You miss the point entirely. No one says kettlebells are better or
worse. Read my reply again - it begins with the words "my choice would
be" and I assume the original poster doesn't need your help to figure
out that he/she may have a different opinion. I shared mine and I'm not
bashful about doing that. That you seem to feel my opinion carries the
weight of some religious dictum is your problem, I'm afraid.

It takes time and experience to figger out the context and "hierarchy"
of all the fitness options available, and altho I don't really like
treadmills myself, they can be a very good option/place to start. And
for some people, indispensable.


There are many better ways to exercise. Working up to doing
strength/endurance training is, in my opinion, a better choice for most
people most of the time.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


--
DT




-S-
http://www.kbnj.com